Final answer:
The Missouri Compromise provided a temporary balance between free and slave states but also exposed deeper sectional disagreements over slavery. It included terms like the 36°30' line to limit slavery's expansion, yet failed to resolve the underlying conflict over the institution.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Missouri Compromise had various aspects that could be seen as both pros and cons, depending on one's perspective. When considering whether it briefly balanced the interests of the North and the South in Congress, it can be seen as a pro, because it maintained a temporary balance of power by admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. However, this also revealed the con, as it brought the depth of the disagreement between the North and the South into sharp focus.
The statement that it settled the issue over the growth of slavery can be seen as a pro to an extent because it established the 36°30' line, north of which slavery was to be excluded, providing a clear geographical boundary. Nonetheless, this measure did not address the long-term issue, and as a con, it did not solve the basic disagreement over slavery, laying the groundwork for future conflict, as it was clear that the Constitution protected slavery where it existed, but the expansion of slavery was still contentious.